Mis-sold on a house

TheJP

ThisIsWeird said:

The neighbourly dispute should, surely, have been declared in the SIP? That's a specific Q.

And, once the 'dispute' was acknowledged, the reason for it should also have been made equally clear.

That's the 'good' news, as I understand it. Actionable after all this time? No idea.

And - really? - the rats infested and wrecked the house to the point it required a major renovation?

I understand - from an actual case which has set the precedent - that a seller must, legally, disclose anything that could 'materially affect the property's value'.

Good luck...

Define dispute and how do you evidence it? Its been 4 years since and i doubt there is any paper trail to back up the claims unless the OP has records. 

ThisIsWeird

TheJP said:

ThisIsWeird said:

The neighbourly dispute should, surely, have been declared in the SIP? That's a specific Q.

And, once the 'dispute' was acknowledged, the reason for it should also have been made equally clear.

That's the 'good' news, as I understand it. Actionable after all this time? No idea.

And - really? - the rats infested and wrecked the house to the point it required a major renovation?

I understand - from an actual case which has set the precedent - that a seller must, legally, disclose anything that could 'materially affect the property's value'.

Good luck...

Define dispute and how do you evidence it? Its been 4 years since and i doubt there is any paper trail to back up the claims unless the OP has records. 

Not for me to define, or to evidence. All I said was, there is a specific Q in the SIP that deals with disputes, so the vendor either answered correctly, or didn't.

The rest is up to the OP. I did express surprise at the delay. Never mind everything else.

It remains a fact, tho', as I understand it, that there is a legal duty on a vendor to disclose anything that could materially affect a property's value. It is not always good enough to shrug and say, "I wasn't asked."

TheJP

ThisIsWeird said:

TheJP said:

ThisIsWeird said:

The neighbourly dispute should, surely, have been declared in the SIP? That's a specific Q.

And, once the 'dispute' was acknowledged, the reason for it should also have been made equally clear.

That's the 'good' news, as I understand it. Actionable after all this time? No idea.

And - really? - the rats infested and wrecked the house to the point it required a major renovation?

I understand - from an actual case which has set the precedent - that a seller must, legally, disclose anything that could 'materially affect the property's value'.

Good luck...

Define dispute and how do you evidence it? Its been 4 years since and i doubt there is any paper trail to back up the claims unless the OP has records. 

Not for me to define, or to evidence. All I said was, there is a specific Q in the SIP that deals with disputes, so the vendor either answered correctly, or didn't.

The rest is up to the OP. I did express surprise at the delay. Never mind everything else.

It remains a fact, tho', as I understand it, that there is a legal duty on a vendor to disclose anything that could materially affect a property's value. It is not always good enough to shrug and say, "I wasn't asked."

I guess my post was also geared to the OP, they need to evidence that the seller had a dispute in the first place. A seller does not have to disclose anything that will affect the value of a property, they just have to truthfully answer any questions asked of them. The house could be falling down but unless they were asked the question they don't have to disclose it. So if the OP didn't ask the question about pests then the seller doesn't have to disclose it. 

user1977

ThisIsWeird said:

TheJP said:

ThisIsWeird said:

The neighbourly dispute should, surely, have been declared in the SIP? That's a specific Q.

And, once the 'dispute' was acknowledged, the reason for it should also have been made equally clear.

That's the 'good' news, as I understand it. Actionable after all this time? No idea.

And - really? - the rats infested and wrecked the house to the point it required a major renovation?

I understand - from an actual case which has set the precedent - that a seller must, legally, disclose anything that could 'materially affect the property's value'.

Good luck...

Define dispute and how do you evidence it? Its been 4 years since and i doubt there is any paper trail to back up the claims unless the OP has records. 

It remains a fact, tho', as I understand it, that there is a legal duty on a vendor to disclose anything that could materially affect a property's value.

And any event, does having a current problem with rats materially affect the value of the property? It might be something a buyer would want to be sorted before completion, but I can't see how it would necessitate a "full refurbishment" of the property.

And the OP has already been through this with a solicitor, which presumably involved more information being discussed than in the OP.

Grumpy_chap

[Deleted User] said:

Hi, new here, but I've ran out of ideas as to what to do next!

It's a pretty long story, but we were sold a house 4 years ago whereby the seller didn't disclose any information about an infestation in the property (rats) and an ongoing dispute with the neighbours about it.

Having a young family, it meant having to move out and we ended up doing a full refurbishment on the property over a 3 year period (whilst renting) in a attempt to deal with the issues. Not every bit of work was connected, but there were thing's we had to do to deal with the problem such as replacing the roof, building works on the garage, etc.

I've written up a timeline of events, but it's been 4 years of hell, and now that we've finally sold the property, the money we sold for wasn't enough to cover all the debts we accumulated and now we've been wiped out financially.

There has also been a huge effect on our health and wellbeing, for example my partner now has nightmares about rats getting into the bedroom, and the financial pressures are causing many disagreements.

I spoke to a solicitor but was just told there's nothing that can be done, but I find it hard to accept we don't have some kind of legal rights when the seller clearly done everything in their power to cover up the issues and didn't declare anything during the sale.

Has anyone had a similar issue or are there any property mis selling experts within Martins' team?

Thanks,
Rob

It is unclear here what the losses are that are being attributed to the rats being present at the property.
Also unclear who you would propose to seek to claim those losses from - the Vendor, Surveyor, Solicitor, someone else?

If the rat infestation was so severe that it required moving out, the focus should have been on those activities directly linked to the rats so that they are no longer resident and any residue has been cleared and fumigated.  I really cannot imagine how that process would take 3 or 4 years.

What are all the other refurbishment works? 
How were these related to the rat infestation?
Were you really paying mortgage plus refurbishment costs plus rent and running costs for another property for all that time?

Unlike TV programmes (Homes Under the Hammer) and such like, buying a wreck of a house and turning it into a dream home is not quick, easy or cheap.  Many expenses that can be sunk into a property make very little change to the property value - as an example you mention the roof needed replacing.  Default values for a house on the market will assume the roof is serviceable and replacing a roof still leaves a roof that is serviceable so the EA valuation is barely changed even though a significant cost has been extended.

You are where you are, the house is sold, and your Solicitor (who will have had far more detail and information that the post here) says there is no route for redress.  
The best thing is to put this chapter behind you and focus on creating the happiest home you can going forward as a tool to relieving the pressures and health challenges you are experiencing.  The financial pressures will not help so it may be worth preparing a SoA (Statement of Affairs) and sharing in the DfW (Debt-free Wannabee) area of this forum as the next step towards a financially secure future.

njkmr

Having sold the house did you disclose to the new purchaser the rat problem you had?
Are you sure the rat problem has gone?
Is the new owner now in the same position as you were ?
I'm not sure you have any claim on the people who sold you the property.

jonnydeppiwish!

Really confused by this post. 

Op had rats in their house.
Op gets in vermin control and pays to lay poison etc.
Op renovates house.
Op overspends on renovation.
Op sells house for less than they’ve spent.
This is now previous vendors for fault for not disclosing that there may be rats in the house somewhere.

Op wants compensation for overspending? Is that about right?

Op, most house will have rodents living in them at some point, especially during the winter when we make our houses warm and cosy to live in. 

It seems more likely that you’ve spent too much money renovating the house. Take the learning experience and move on.

Noneforit999

The issues with the roof etc should have been picked up on a survey so if you didn't have a survey done, you can't be expecting to take any action against the vendor 4 years later. You didn't buy a new build, you don't get a warranty and you as the buyer are responsible for doing due diligence, it really is buyer beware for the most part, hence why people get surveys. 

The neighbour dispute should have been put on the form but ultimately, unless you A) Can prove this dispute was going on prior to sale (paperwork etc), B.) Have the money to go back via a solicitor to try and fight it (solicitors don't work for free), C) Have the funds to do this and potentially lose, it feels like a waste of time/money/energy.

The rats are a strange one but presumably you got this dealt with via a professional and it didn't take 3-4 years? 
I am not sure how you stand legally on this but I don't recall anywhere on the form it asked about stuff like this so perhaps a survey may have picked something up?

ThisIsWeird

I'm not at all suggesting that the OP has a rat in hell's chance of making a valid claim, and it's nigh-on impossible to think up an actual scenario where he could have - perhaps if the neighbour was a psycho who bred rats and fed them into his loft via a tunnel?

There is a section in the SIP dealing directly with neighbourly disputes, tho', and it is a legal requirement to disclose.

And, there is a legal requirement to disclose, beyond the SIP, anything that could 'materially affect the value of the property'. Eg, if a previous occupant had been killed in the house by rats. Most folk would find that off-putting.

Has the OP got a chance on either point? I doubt it very, very much. But, we don't know the story.

I'm hoping it's a beaut. But ain't holding my breath.

Dustyevsky

There's a lot of questions on this thread and no answers, so I think it's best not to judge too harshly.

One thing stands out though; 'Solicitor says, "No." ' Assuming that's not a no-win, no-fee outfit, it's the most solid advice of all. Those folks don't usually turn down the chance to make a few bob!